People v. Sanders CA3, C082454A

Background

On Oct. 5, 2015, Sanders left a Save Mart with unpaid items, assaulted the store manager and caused serious mouth injuries requiring stitches.
A jury convicted Sanders of robbery (§ 211) and battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)); the jury found he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
The trial court imposed a 20‑year aggregate prison term: upper term 5 years on robbery doubled to 10 for a prior strike, +3 years (GBI enhancement), +5 years (§ 667(a) serious‑felony enhancement), +2 years (two prior prison‑term enhancements); the battery sentence was stayed under § 654.
On appeal Sanders argued (1) the court unlawfully deducted five days of presentence conduct credits without prior written notice or hearing and (2) the court did not clearly state fines/fees or ensure the abstract reflected them; supplemental briefing raised retroactive application of S.B. 136 (eliminating most prior‑prison‑term enhancements) and S.B. 1393 (allowing striking of § 667(a) enhancements).
The Court of Appeal: (a) concluded Sanders forfeited the conduct‑credit claim for failing to object at sentencing; (b) found the trial court’s oral imposition of most fines/fees was adequate but had omitted imposing the mandatory $80 court operations assessment and some abstract entries; (c) applied S.B. 136 retroactively, struck the prior prison‑term enhancements and vacated the two 1‑year sentences; and (d) declined to remand under S.B. 1393 because the sentencing record shows the court would not have stricken the § 667(a) enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Sanders)	Held
Deduction of 5 days presentence conduct credits	Forfeiture: no timely objection at sentencing; court acted within discretion	Deduction violated due process—required prior notice and an evidentiary hearing; remand to recalc credits	Forfeited for failure to object; claim rejected (no remand)
Clarity and entry of fines/fees; abstract of judgment accuracy	Oral cross‑reference to probation report adequately imposed fines; abstract should be corrected to reflect what was imposed	Court failed to clearly state fines/fees and must amend abstract to show intended penalties	Record shows most fines were orally imposed; appellate court orders imposition of mandatory $80 court operations assessment and directs correction of abstract to include several fees
Retroactive application of S.B. 136 to prior prison‑term enhancements (§ 667.5(b))	S.B. 136 applies retroactively to pending appeals; prior prison‑term enhancements should be stricken	Requests retroactive application to vacate the prior‑term sentences	Agrees S.B. 136 applies retroactively; strikes the two prior prison‑term enhancements and vacates their one‑year terms
Retroactivity and remand under S.B. 1393 for § 667(a) enhancement	S.B. 1393 applies retroactively; remand for discretionary decision to strike enhancement unless record shows court would not have done so	Requested remand/consideration under S.B. 1393	S.B. 1393 retroactive but remand denied because record demonstrates court would not have stricken the § 667(a) enhancement (futility)

Key Cases Cited

People v. Duesler, 203 Cal.App.3d 273 (prior notice and opportunity to rebut required before withholding presentence conduct credits)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (forfeiture rule: raise sentencing objections at sentencing)
People v. Trujillo, 60 Cal.4th 850 (failure to object to procedural protections forfeits claim on appeal)
People v. Aguirre, 56 Cal.App.4th 1135 (credit calculation issues involving novel statutory interpretation may not be forfeited)
People v. Jones, 32 Cal.App.5th 267 (no remand under S.B. 1393 when record shows court would not have stricken enhancement)
People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (S.B. 1393 applies retroactively)
People v. Gastelum, 45 Cal.App.5th 757 (S.B. 136 retroactivity to pending appeals)
People v. Smith, 24 Cal.4th 849 (appellate courts may correct trial court’s omission by imposing mandatory fines/assessments)